|
|
Up |
|
|
  |
Author: bigfletch8bigfletch8 Date: Jan 27, 2008 16:51
That in itself, is a powerful statement against the reality of the
spiritual aspect of man.
No room for "knowing" amongst the intellectual elite...(with few
exceptions of course)
The reason is very simple. Science is in the business of "looking at".
Spirituality (for definition purposes...authentic self)...is about
where one is looking from... The oserver, not the observed.
Imagine having your observation of life defined by epistemological
standards. You then hear from somebody you totally trust about their
'spiritual' (NOT religious...) experience.Not only do you trust their
honesty, but are aware of their superior intelligence.
What proof would be needed to share their perception?
Bear in mind, that the masters have told us that everybody reaches a
state of self awareness in their own unique way.
Add to that, the growing awareness of the metaphysics of quantum
projection (applicable to beliefs also), and you can see why believers
need confirmation. Knowing does not project such images.
BOfL
|
| |
|
| | 25 Comments |
|
  |
Author: Michael GordgeMichael Gordge Date: Jan 27, 2008 17:10
On Jan 28, 9:51 am, "bigflet...@ gmail.com" gmail.com>
wrote:
> That in itself, is a powerful statement against the reality of the
> spiritual aspect of man.
Thread title:
"Why the ultimate goal of science is only to find a "theory"of
everything."
Nearly right Brian, "everythings" include ideas and theories, the goal
of science is to explain matter, not things which therefore includes
ideas and theories.
Shucks Brian, what would science use as the standard to confirm as
fact, or to reject as fiction their theories of theories and ideas?
Further theories and ideas? about what? more theories and ideas? of
what? theories and ideas? about what? other theories and ideas? Hows
god?
You're sounding very Kantian and or mystical when theories about
theories based on theories are used to validate theories about
theories.
Only matter makes a scientist's theory and ideas matter.
|
| Show full article (0.93Kb) |
|
| | no comments |
|
  |
Author: EdEd Date: Jan 27, 2008 17:11
On Jan 27, 7:51 pm, "bigflet...@ gmail.com" gmail.com>
wrote:
> That in itself, is a powerful statement against the reality of the
> spiritual aspect of man.
>
> No room for "knowing" amongst the intellectual elite...(with few
> exceptions of course)
>
> The reason is very simple. Science is in the business of "looking at".
> Spirituality (for definition purposes...authentic self)...is about
> where one is looking from... The oserver, not the observed.
>
> Imagine having your observation of life defined by epistemological
> standards. You then hear from somebody you totally trust about their
> 'spiritual' (NOT religious...) experience.Not only do you trust their
> honesty, but are aware of their superior intelligence.
>
> What proof would be needed to share their perception?
|
| Show full article (1.53Kb) |
| no comments |
|
  |
Author: Michael GordgeMichael Gordge Date: Jan 27, 2008 17:27
On Jan 28, 10:11 am, Ed earthlink.net> wrote:
> I have yet to meet anyone who I trust
> to never make a mistake, never get it wrong.
Allow me to introduce yourself to you then, or are you saying that you
have made a mistake in saying that you have never met someone who has
never made a mistake?
Michael Gordge
|
| |
| no comments |
|
  |
Author: Don StockbauerDon Stockbauer Date: Jan 27, 2008 17:56
Why the ultimate goal of science is only to find a "theory"of
everything
************************************************
http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/
|
| |
| no comments |
|
  |
Author: Mark EarnestMark Earnest Date: Jan 27, 2008 18:39
> That in itself, is a powerful statement against the reality of the
> spiritual aspect of man.
>
> No room for "knowing" amongst the intellectual elite...(with few
> exceptions of course)
>
> The reason is very simple. Science is in the business of "looking at".
> Spirituality (for definition purposes...authentic self)...is about
> where one is looking from... The oserver, not the observed.
>
> Imagine having your observation of life defined by epistemological
> standards. You then hear from somebody you totally trust about their
> 'spiritual' (NOT religious...) experience.Not only do you trust their
> honesty, but are aware of their superior intelligence.
>
> What proof would be needed to share their perception?
>
> Bear in mind, that the masters have told us that everybody reaches a ...
|
| Show full article (1.28Kb) |
| no comments |
|
  |
Author: EdEd Date: Jan 27, 2008 18:47
On Jan 27, 8:27 pm, Michael Gordge xtra.co.nz> wrote:
> On Jan 28, 10:11 am, Ed earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>> I have yet to meet anyone who I trust
>> to never make a mistake, never get it wrong.
>
> Allow me to introduce yourself to you then, or are you saying that you
> have made a mistake in saying that you have never met someone who has
> never made a mistake?
>
I have never met anyone who was always right, myself included. I'm
not sure I want to.
Ed
> Michael Gordge
|
| |
| no comments |
|
  |
Author: bigfletch8bigfletch8 Date: Jan 27, 2008 19:59
On Jan 28, 12:47 pm, Ed earthlink.net> wrote:
> On Jan 27, 8:27 pm, Michael Gordge xtra.co.nz> wrote:
>
>> On Jan 28, 10:11 am, Ed earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>>> I have yet to meet anyone who I trust
>>> to never make a mistake, never get it wrong.
>
>> Allow me to introduce yourself to you then, or are you saying that you
>> have made a mistake in saying that you have never met someone who has
>> never made a mistake?
>
> I have never met anyone who was always right, myself included. I'm
> not sure I want to.
>
> Ed
>
>
>
>> Michael Gordge- Hide quoted text - ...
|
| Show full article (0.89Kb) |
| no comments |
|
  |
Author: bigfletch8bigfletch8 Date: Jan 27, 2008 20:02
On Jan 28, 11:27 am, Michael Gordge xtra.co.nz> wrote:
> On Jan 28, 10:11 am, Ed earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>> I have yet to meet anyone who I trust
>> to never make a mistake, never get it wrong.
>
> Allow me to introduce yourself to you then, or are you saying that you
> have made a mistake in saying that you have never met someone who has
> never made a mistake?
>
> Michael Gordge
How easy it is to get tied up in knots, semantically. The source of
most humor.
BOfL
|
| |
| no comments |
|
  |
|
|
  |
Author: bigfletch8bigfletch8 Date: Jan 27, 2008 20:11
On Jan 28, 11:10 am, Michael Gordge xtra.co.nz> wrote:
> On Jan 28, 9:51 am, "bigflet...@ gmail.com" gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> That in itself, is a powerful statement against the reality of the
>> spiritual aspect of man.
>
> Thread title:
>
> "Why the ultimate goal of science is only to find a "theory"of
> everything."
>
> Nearly right Brian, "everythings" include ideas and theories, the goal
> of science is to explain matter, not things which therefore includes
> ideas and theories.
Their goal.
Heard any news on how they "explain matter"?.
|
| Show full article (1.46Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
|
|